BRITISH COLUMBIA UTILITIES COMMISSION€¦ · Allwest Reporting Ltd. 2nd Floor-855 Homer Street Vancouver, B.C BRITISH COLUMBIA UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE UTILITIES

Allwest Reporting Ltd. 2nd Floor-855 Homer Street

Vancouver, B.C

BRITISH COLUMBIA UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT S.B.C. 1996, CHAPTER 473

and Re: British Columbia Transmission Corporation

("BCTC”) Project No. 3698395 /Order No. G-70-05 Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

(“CPCN”) Application Vancouver Island Transmission Reinforcement Project (“VITR”)

and Sea Breeze Pacific Regional Transmission System, Inc.

for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Vancouver Island Cable Project

BEFORE:

R. Hobbs, Chairperson

N. Nicholls , Commissioner

L. O'Hara, Commissioner

VOLUME 29

PROCEEDINGS AT HEARING

Vancouver, B.C. March 8, 2006

APPEARANCES G.A. FULTON Commission Counsel S. CARPENTER C. BYSTROM

British Columbia Transmission Corporation

J. LANDRY J. HERBERT

Sea Breeze Pacific Regional Transmission System Inc Sea Breeze Victoria Converter Corporation

C.W. SANDERSON C. GODSOE H.M. CANE

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

S. HANSEN R.B. WALLACE

Joint Industry Steering Committee

D. CRAIG Commercial Energy Consumers R. GATHERCOLE B.C. Old Age Pensioners' Organization, Council Of Senior

Citizens' Organizations, Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of British Columbia, End Legislated Poverty, B.C. Coalition Of People With Disabilities, Active Support Against Poverty, and Tenants' Rights Action Coalition

J. YARDLEY Corporation of Delta J. RISTOW B. KUDZIN

South Delta Secondary High School Parent Advisory Council

D. POLLACK City of White Rock S. JAMES R. HARDING

Islands Trust

C. BAZZARD Owners of Strata Plan 905 and Shareholders of Maracaibo

Estates Limited J. ARVAY M. UNDERSHILL

Tsawwassen Residents Against Higher Voltage Overhead Lines (TRAHVOL)

D. AUSTIN Island Residents Against Higher Voltage Overhead Lines

(IRAHVOL) K. HOLMSEN On His Own Behalf S. BOYCE On Her Own Behalf K.H. NAM On His Own Behalf B. CAMPBELL On His Own Behalf

BCTC-VITR/Sea Breeze - VIC March 8, 2006 Volume 29 Page: 5448

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Allwest Reporting Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.

CAARS

VANCOUVER, B.C.

March 8, 2006

(PROCEEDINGS RESUMED AT 1:30 P.M.)

THE CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Are there any

preliminary matters? Good. Then I think you can

proceed, Mr. Landry.

MR. LANDRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What we'll be

doing, at least at the beginning, is referring to a

couple of exhibits, and I thought I might just give

you those exhibit numbers so that you have them in

front of you.

One is C31-12, which is a document that

was filed -- I can't remember if it was yesterday or

the day before yesterday -- which outlined the panels

and the evidence -- primary -- or primary evidence

that the panels would be dealing with.

The next one is B2-68, which is the direct

evidence that was filed last week for Panel number

one. And the third one, just for your reference is

B2-51, which is the document that attached the various

CVs for all of the members of the panels.

And, Mr. Chairman, I was able to get a

revised opening statement out -- not as early as I'd

hoped, but mid-morning today to everybody. I believe

everybody has a copy. I've given copies to Mr.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Bemister, so I assume that the panel has copies of

them.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And we've had an opportunity to

read it. So my suggestion, actually, is that you not

read it into the record unless there's a request to do

so. I don't think that's necessary. What you might

have your panel do, if they wish to, is make a few

comments starting on page six of your opening, through

to the -- through to the conclusion, but just because

I anticipate everyone has had an opportunity to read

it. I don't think it's going to be necessary for you

to read it into the record now.

MR. LANDRY: First of all, it was not me that was going

to read it into the record, it was going to be the

panel.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MR. LANDRY: But I accept your thoughts, and I'll ask Mr.

Manson to consider those comments relative to his

opening statement. Could we just mark that, at least,

as the next exhibit, Mr. Chairman? So that's C31-14.

THE HEARING OFFICER: C31-14.

(REVISED OPENING STATEMENT OF SEA BREEZE CORPORATE

POLICY/MANAGEMENT PANEL MARKED AS EXHIBIT C31-14)

MR. LANDRY: Just for the record, given how much

discussion has gone on between the three alternatives

that we've been talking about, I noticed that in C31-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


12, which is the -- the various panels -- Panels A

through D, and the evidence -- that the Panel C's

title effectively just said "VITR and JDF". That was

a hangover from the previous document that was filed.

So you -- I would ask that that be changed to "VITR,

VIC and JDF". I think the other ones, it's implicitly

that there will be issues relating to all three

projects, but in that one it seems to be definitive,

and it was not intended to be that way.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Right. Thank you.

MR. LANDRY: Now, Mr. Chairman, although I know that we

are here for a limited purpose today, obviously we've

-- we now have filed the opening statement, and I will

allow Mr. Manson to, taking your comments into

account, make a few preliminary opening remarks. But

before we do that, I'd like to introduce the panel to

the Commission.

And firstly, in the middle, is -- of the

panel, is Paul Manson, who is the president of Sea

Breeze Victoria Converter Corporation, which is the

intervenor in the proceeding. To Mr. Manson's right

is Mr. Brian Chernack a director of Sea Breeze

Victoria Converter Corporation and also the president

of Boundless Energy, which you've heard about in this

proceeding. And to Mr. Manson's left is Dr. El-Ramly,

who is president of ZE PowerGroup Inc., and ZE Power


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Engineering, who is an advisor to Sea Breeze. And

again, just for the record, their CVs are contained

at Exhibit B2-51. And again for the record, their

direct evidence is at Exhibit B2-68.

Proceeding Time 1:35 p.m. T2

And, Mr. Chairman, this panel is here to

answer questions on the areas of evidence filed by Sea

Breeze in Exhibits B2-1 and C31-6 as outlined on the

third page of Exhibit C31-12 under Panel A. And

before we go much further, I wonder if the witness

could be sworn, please.

SEA BREEZE CORPORATE POLICY/ANAGEMENT PANEL A

BRIAN CHERNACK, Affirmed:

PAUL MANSON, Affirmed:

ZAK EL-RAMLY, Affirmed:

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. LANDRY:

MR. LANDRY: Q: Mr. Manson, do you have the direct

evidence of Paul Manson filed as part of Exhibit B2-

68?

MR. MANSON: A: I have read it. There is a slight

change which should be made to it which is that

termination of my position as corporate secretary of

Seine River Resources should be changed to 1995, and

the commencement of my position as president of that

company should also be changed to 1995.

MR. LANDRY: Q: Okay. And with those changes, is the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


evidence true?

MR. MANSON: A: Yes, it is.

MR. LANDRY: Q: And do you adopt the evidence as your

sworn testimony in this proceeding?

MR. MANSON: A: I do.

MR. LANDRY: Q: And Mr. Manson, could you have Exhibit

C31-12 in front of you, which is the letter to Mr.

Pellatt dated March 7, 2006 from myself? Do you have

that?

MR. MANSON: A: I do.

MR. LANDRY: Q: And sir, I wonder if you could go to

the third page in that document, more particularly the

evidence that is outlined in the two bullets there.

MR. MANSON: A: Yes.

MR. LANDRY: Q: You see that evidence? Have you

reviewed that evidence, Mr. Manson?

MR. MANSON: A: Yes, I have.

MR. LANDRY: Q: And to the best of your understandings

and belief, is that evidence true and accurate?

MR. MANSON: A: Yes.

MR. LANDRY: Q: Mr. Chernack, do you have the direct

evidence of Brian Chernack filed as part of Exhibit

B2-68?

MR. CHERNACK: A: I do.

MR. LANDRY: Q: And are there any changes to that

evidence?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


MR. CHERNACK: A: Yes. I would like to add to question

5 in relation to the role I played in the application

process, that I did participate in the drafting of the

Juan de Fuca NEB application.

MR. LANDRY: Q: And sir, with that change, is that

evidence true?

MR. CHERNACK: A: Yes, it is.

MR. LANDRY: Q: And do you adopt that evidence as your

sworn testimony in this proceeding?

MR. CHERNACK: A: Yes, I do.

MR. LANDRY: Q: And sir, again I'd like you to refer to

the letter that I just mentioned to Mr. Manson's

Exhibit C31-12. Do you have that?


MR. LANDRY: Q: The third page on that?

MR. CHERNACK: A: Yes.

MR. LANDRY: Q: Under Panel A do you see the two

bullets?


MR. LANDRY: Q: And sir, the evidence that's listed

there, have you reviewed that evidence?

MR. CHERNACK: A: Yes, I have.

MR. LANDRY: Q: And to the best of your understanding

and belief, is that evidence true and accurate?

MR. CHERNACK: A: Yes, it is.

MR. LANDRY: Q: Dr. El-Ramly, do you have the direct


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


evidence of Zak El-Ramly filed as part of Exhibit B2-

68?

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: I do.

MR. LANDRY: Q: And are there any changes to that

evidence?

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: No.

MR. LANDRY: Q: And sir, do you adopt that evidence as

your sworn testimony in this proceeding?

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: Yes.

MR. LANDRY: Q: And sir, again I'd like you to refer to

the letter that I referred to both Mr. Manson and Mr.

Chernack, Exhibit C31-12. Do you have that?


MR. LANDRY: Q: And the third page?

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: I do.

MR. LANDRY: Q: Under Panel A the two bullets, do you

see that?

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: Yes, I do.

MR. LANDRY: Q: Have you reviewed the evidence filed by

Sea Breeze in relation to that?

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: Yes, I did.

MR. LANDRY: Q: And to the best of your understanding

belief is that evidence true and accurate?


MR. LANDRY: Q: Now, Mr. Chairman, we'll allow Mr.

Manson to, taking your comments into account, provide


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


you with some statements relating to what has been

filed as the opening statement, but we will take it as

read, obviously. And after he has finished his

opening statement, given the limited nature of the

proceeding today, I would just like to make a couple

of comments about what we understand today's cross-

examination will be. And assuming we have it

correctly, Mr. Manson may have a couple of comments as

to Sea Breeze's view vis-à-vis the revised VIC

proposal. That may help define some things. So if

that's acceptable to you, Mr. Chair?


THE CHAIRPERSON: It is.

MR. LANDRY: Mr. Manson?

MR. MANSON: Thank you. What I would like to do, if I

may, is simply read a couple of key paragraphs out of

this opening statement which I think capture the

essence of position.

"Despite the unfortunate turn of events

that occurred last week, which led to Sea

Breeze's withdrawal of its VIC CPCN

application, Sea Breeze still believes that

VIC, or a VIC-like project, provides a

better solution than VITR to Vancouver

Island's transmission needs, even if that

project is to be constructed by BCTC, and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


owned by B.C. Hydro. We are therefore very

pleased, given the circumstances as they

have evolved, that the Commission has

decided it will still consider whether the

VIC project as defined and advocated by Sea

Breeze in this proceeding provides a better

alternative than VITR for solving the

transmission issues facing Vancouver

Island.

In proposing JDF and VIC projects, Sea

Breeze has invited the Commission to think

outside of the box by considering the

ability of private-sector transmission

development and merchant transmission to

meet British Columbia's system planning

needs in innovative ways that can allow

ratepayers to avoid the risk and rate

consequences of lumpy investments and allow

major capital transmission investment risk

to be undertaken by private companies."

Turning to page 9:

"There are two distinct sets of issues

before the BCUC in considering the JDF

proposal and the revised VIC alternative.

There are now two distinct sets of issues

which the Commission must separately assess.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


The first is issues relating to the ability

of the VID and/or JDF projects to satisfy

Vancouver Island's need for transmission

reinforcement, and secondly, issues relating

to the capability of the team which Sea

Breeze has assembled to develop the JDF

project. These issues must be considered

separately. As such, this panel will be

available to answer many of the questions

which the Commission and participants may

have relating to the second set of issues,

including questions relating to the

financial capacity of Sea Breeze's team,

supported by EIF, or Energy Investors' Fund,

and Société Generale, and the relationship

between Sea Breeze and ABB."

Turning to page 12, "Conclusion":

"For the first time within this proceeding,

this Commission has given -- has been given

the opportunity to thoroughly and

comprehensively consider private-sector-

driven alternatives to a major transmission

infrastructure development proposed by the

public transmission utility. And although

the VIC alternative is no longer being

proposed as a private-sector-owned facility,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


the approach taken by Sea Breeze in

advocating both the JDF and VIC alternatives

to VITR represents a watershed for

transmission development and regulation in

this province.

Sea Breeze is very pleased to have been

given this opportunity to bring forward the

two alternatives to VITR, and to assist the

Commission in arriving at decisions about

transmission infrastructure development that

will best serve the collective needs and

interests of ratepayers, other stakeholders,

and the provincial transmission system as a

whole."

MR. LANDRY: Now I note that -- I see Mr. Manson's copy

of the opening statement, it's in larger font, and

hence the reason for the pages. And just for the

record, Mr. Manson was referring to page 4, and then

page 6, and then finally page 7 -- so it's a bit

clearer on the record.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yeah, that was fine, we were able to

follow it.

MR. LANDRY: Good, thank you.

Now, Mr. Chairman, obviously the panel is

here to be cross-examined, and I know we have a

limited purpose in relation to that, and I just want


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


to make sure that we're relatively clear what that

limited purpose is, and as I understand it, it is

effectively an attempt to do something to help the

intervenors determine whether or not there should be

evidence that should be taken off the record as a

result of the turn of events from last week, and that

there will be some discussions with the panel relating

to what has been called by you, Mr. Chairman, as the

revised VIC proposal. And that we'll be limited in

effectively to issues arising around that, subject to

your rulings obviously, and then tomorrow we will pick

up on the -- what I'll call the more full cross-

examination of this panel. That was an attempt to be,

you know, in summary form what we understand to be the

case, and I just want to --


THE CHAIRPERSON: I might put the emphasis a little bit

differently, but it's going to be what we hear from

the questions that's going to be important. The

difference I put in emphasis that it may be that the

principal purpose this afternoon of the cross-

examination is to better define what the revised VIC

proposal is, and as a secondary issue that may lead to

applications to strike some of the evidence. So I

would just put the emphasis a little bit differently,

but I don't think it matters.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


MR. LANDRY: I don't either, Mr. Chairman. I just to

make sure that we are -- there are some bounds, and I

don't mean that in the sense of stopping cross-

examination. It'll be full on tomorrow obviously, but

I do think that this has to be in the context of Sea

Breeze is attempting at the moment to respond to the

two information requests that were asked of Sea Breeze

on the record by Mr. Fulton, one of which effectively

is what -- I'm using my words -- what is the revised

proposal and how would you see it. And so that's

being done as we speak, it was this morning, and so

it's an evolving concept.

But just in line with what you have said,

Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Manson would like to at least

have a couple of opening comments on that issue, if

that would be helpful for everybody to define, at

least from Sea Breeze's perspective, where they're at

in relation to that.

THE CHAIRPERSON: That'll be fine. You may proceed.

MR. MANSON: A: Thank you.

We would like to reiterate that Sea Breeze

believes that the Juan de Fuca project offers the best

solution for meeting Vancouver Island's reliability

needs. However, even if the Commission does not

accept the JDF proposal as the best solution, Sea

Breeze still believes that the VITR proposal, as it


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


has been defined by BCTC, should not be approved

because there is still another better alternative for

meeting Vancouver Island's transmission challenges,

using HVDC Light to connect between Ingledow and Pike

Lake rather than the AC options between Arnott and VIT

to which BCTC has chosen to confine its consideration.

Notwithstanding Sea Breeze's withdrawal of

its CPCN application for VIC, the Commission should

still consider whether VIC or a VIC-like alternative

is the best solution, and that this should still be

part of the Commission's consideration of whether it

should grant the CPCN to BCTC for the VITR project.

For the Commission to best be able to fully

and adequately consider a VIC or VIC-like alternative,

we believe that the evidentiary record presently

before the Commission, dealing with a VIC proposal,

should stay essentially as it is. If the Commission

ultimately decides that the best solution for

Vancouver Island is to direct BCTC to proceed with a

VIC or VIC-like alternative, then Sea Breeze has

explained its position in its response to BCUC IR

1.11.3, part of Exhibit B2-8.

If in those circumstances we get to that

situation, Sea Breeze believes it should be fairly

compensated to reflect the capital, including the

intellectual capital and the substantial work that it


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


has done in the development of the VIC concept, and

Sea Breeze should have some involvement in the

continued development of the project to reflect and

capitalize on those contributions.

At this point in time it's premature for

Sea Breeze to define exactly what form that

involvement could take. If the Commission were to

determine that VIC or a VIC-like alternative is the

best solution Vancouver Island's problem, we are more

than willing to sit down with BCTC and B.C. Hydro to

discuss and negotiate what level of continued

involvement by Sea Breeze would be the most beneficial

for all parties concerned, having regard to all of the

development work Sea Breeze has already done on this

project, Sea Breeze's relationship with ABB, and the

expertise and intellectual capital that Sea Breeze has

assembled.


At this stage it would be presumptuous for

Sea Breeze to pre-suppose what the outcome of those

negotiations would be, not do we believe it would be

in the interests of stakeholders to negotiate

continued involvement by Sea Breeze in a public forum

or under the confrontational environment of cross-

examination in this proceeding.

I'll just say in closing that our interest


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


is to act constructively, cooperatively, and in

collaboration with the parties with whom we are

involved.

MR. LANDRY: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the panel is now

open for cross-examination.

MR. FULTON: British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. SANDERSON:

MR. SANDERSON: Good afternoon, panel. Good afternoon,

Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.

I'm not going to be referring to very many

exhibits at all, but the only one that I would expect

to take the panel to -- gentlemen, if you could have

it, it looks to me like at least Dr. El-Ramly does,

and that's Exhibit 2-1, which is the original Sea

Breeze application. I think that's the only thing

that I'll be referring to.

And gentlemen, at the risk of stating

another way what the Chairman and your counsel were

discussing just a moment ago, in terms of the purpose

of this cross-examination, I agree with both of them,

and particularly with the emphasis the Chair put on

it, but the specific things that I want to find out

today are really, I think, three. And that is, I

think we need to understand with the VIC proposal,

when it is that, in your view -- and all I want is

your view -- it's necessary that that project become


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


available, that is, become available for commercial

operation. So what your schedule is for it.

Second, what its physical characteristics

are, and third, who will have responsibility for

causing it to happen. And those are the only things I

want to talk about today, and then in subsequent

panels, as I understand it, Sea Breeze will be

presenting evidence as to how these things will

happen, both with respect to VIC and Juan de Fuca.

But today, I want to talk about just the first --

when, what and who, with respect only to VIC.

Q: And with that preamble, I guess my

first question's a very simple one, and it's all that

I want to know about "when", and that is, when does

the revised VIC project have to be available for

commercial operation to represent a viable option for

meeting the capacity needs on Vancouver Island, and

therefore replacing VITR as a solution to those

problems.

MR. CHERNACK: A: Mr. Sanderson, Mr. Chairman -- we

believe that the need for the VITR replacement,

whether it be VIC, VITR, or Juan de Fuca -- timing has

been established, and we would not propose to any

other schedule. I think the target is 2008 for what

we had proposed for the VIC project, and we see no

reason why that could not be met.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


MR. SANDERSON: Q: Thank you. That's all I have on the

"when". And then the "what," I think I know the

answer to the "what" but I just want to make sure that

we're on the same wavelength, and that's where I need

to take you to Exhibit B2-1, which is the Application.

And I think if we just look at the Executive Summary,

it's probably all we need. But at lines 5 to 17 on

page 3 of that exhibit, you'll see there's a brief

description there of the project. And I'm assuming

that when we talk about the revised VIC project, we're

still talking a project that has the characteristics

identified on those lines.

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: That's correct.


MR. SANDERSON: Q: And I'm similarly assuming that the

components described in section 1.3, that's on page 4

and over onto 5, continue to be elements of the VIC

revised project.

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: Yes, that is correct.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: Now, the rest of my questions relate

to the who, and to make that more intelligible for

everybody I've tried to put together something that

might assist you and the Commissioners in

understanding the relative responsibilities. Mr.

Manson, I do understand the comments you just made,

and it may be that we can't fill in some of these


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


boxes, but I think I'd like to try. And to the extent

that Sea Breeze knows what it thinks different

parties' roles should be with respect to different

elements, then that's what we'll try and establish

now, and to the extent you don't know, well then,

you'll tell me that.

Mr. Fulton has kindly suggested that I ask

for this to be marked as Exhibit C6-15.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Marked Exhibit C6-15.

(WITNESS AID: REVISED PROPOSAL: ROLES AND

RESPONSIBILITIES MARKED EXHIBIT C6-15)

MR. SANDERSON: Q: Now, Mr. Manson, as I said, what I

want to do is populate, if you will, this table, and

there's some specific sub-categories under each of

these that I want to put to you, and then I want if

you can to tell me which box we should put

responsibility for in.

And the first one is, in your mind if the

VIC proposal goes ahead and this Commission at the end

of this process that it will reject VITR and will

direct that work begin as of the next day, one assumes

on bringing forward the VIC proposal as revised, who

would you see being the overall project manager from

that moment until the commercial operation day?

MR. CHERNACK: A: Mr. Sanderson, Mr. Chairman, Panel, I

think Mr. Sanderson has put together a very useful


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


document here that will provide a guide, if the

Chairman and the Panel decide that something other

than VITR is appropriate. I think I would reflect Mr.

Manson's earlier comment that this -- we can talk

about possibilities but they're hypothetical at this

point. Sea Breeze has not been engaged by BCTC or

B.C. Hydro to address some of these issues, and we

certainly could fill boxes in, and I think before the

end of the day we will probably be filling boxes in.

But we just are not in a position to say what our

preference would be, because at this point the

decision is not ours. It is up to some other party.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: Well, without Mr. Chernack taking

you up on that last comment as to whether the decision

or isn't yours, I may come back to that. I mean, it

seems to me that there may be some things here, and

maybe I'll come at this the other way around, which,

given what you have said, we can say with confidence

will not be Sea Breeze's responsibility.

MR. CHERNACK: A: We can agree with that.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: Okay, and let me see if we can hit a

few of those. And the one that strikes me as clearest

from your announcement last week is if we go to --

bear with me for a moment -- the very last page, page

4, you'll see the heading "Investment in the Project",

and there's two aspects of that. There's construction


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


financing and then there's capital investment post

commercial operation, and I'm assuming that, given

your announcement, neither of those things would be

Sea Breeze's responsibilities.

MR. CHERNACK: A: That's correct.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: And I'm also, I think, assuming that

you wouldn't expect any different treatment for these

facilities than exist in the province generally for

other transmission facilities.

MR. CHERNACK: A: That's correct.


MR. SANDERSON: Q: And so if I look at the investment

in project both before and after COD, commercial

operation date, for investment I'd better put a big

tick beside B.C. Hydro.

MR. CHERNACK: A: Correct.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: And just out of interest, pre the

revised proposal and with the original proposal, that

tick for investment in a project would have gone to

Sea Breeze/EIF, would it not?


MR. SANDERSON: Q: So in essence, what's happened here

is the funding for this project has shifted from Sea

Breeze/EIF to B.C. Hydro.


MR. SANDERSON: Q: And Commission acceptance and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


approval, that is obtaining ultimate -- assuming

ultimate responsibility to this regulatory body, and

assuming the responsibilities the public utility in

this province assume, that I think similarly is no

longer something Sea Breeze is offering to do?

MR. CHERNACK: A: Would you clarify that question? I'm

not sure I understand what you mean by "Commission and

acceptance of approval, approval".

MR. SANDERSON: Q: Well, I'll break it down for you if

that helps.

MR. CHERNACK: A: Thank you.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: First of all, the filing -- I mean,

would it be your understanding that whoever ultimately

constructs these facilities is still going to need a

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity?

MR. CHERNACK: A: Yes.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: And Sea Breeze would not apply for

that now in its own name.

MR. CHERNACK: A: It would not.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: It would not.

MR. CHERNACK: A: It would not.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: Thank you. And do you have any

suggestion as to who would?

MR. CHERNACK: A: I may suggest that it could be

decided by the Commission in this proceeding, based on

the comments from the Panel that this would be a one


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


decision process.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: Well, I don't -- yes, and I don't

want to put you in the position of having to explain

the BCTC/B.C. Hydro division of responsibility, so

maybe the best way to put it is: You're not

suggesting that this particular transmission line

would be handled for that purpose, any differently

than the other transmission line that's being built in

the province. The same regulatory procedures with

respect to who brings the application for what as

between Hydro and BCTC should pertain.

MR. CHERNACK: A: Unless there are other transmission

proposals in the province that would be proposed by

the private sector.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: Yes, but I'm speaking now with

respect to the revised VIC proposal --

MR. CHERNACK: A: That is not --

MR. SANDERSON: Q: It's not the case.

MR. CHERNACK: A: That is not the case.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: All right, so whatever would go for

any other system.

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: Unless in the part of the

negotiation, Sea Breeze and BCTC/B.C. Hydro had

decided to develop a certain partnership, in which

case I can see the two of them actually going to the

Commission applying for a CPCN. To explain it, if


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


according to this process BCTC, the Commission or B.C.

Hydro are convinced enough that that intellectual

capital, the approach that Sea Breeze brings to the

table is viable enough, and BCTC/B.C. Hydro would

require to capitalize on this intellectual capital

that has been developed, they may want to partner with

them in one way or another, and as a result the two

parties may viably apply for a CPCN.

So the answer is not clear until how much

help from Sea Breeze is required to make the VIC-like

proposal continue in the future, taking advantage of

what had been developed to date.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: And Dr. El-Ramly, that's a

negotiation which would have to start after this

Commission had rendered its decision on the VITR

application and rejected it.

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: That's a decision that has to start

after the Commission have concluded that the VIC

proposal is a better proposal than either of VITR or

JDF --

MR. SANDERSON: Q: Yes.

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: -- and want us collectively to pursue

it for the province.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: Thank you.

With respect to the obligation to ensure

that the facilities remain capable of serving the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


purpose for which they're intended, and contribute to

a reliable and safe transmission system in the

province, i.e., the normal responsibilities of a

public utility, even given what you've said, Dr. El-

Ramly, can you envisage any role for Sea Breeze on an

ongoing basis on that?

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: You mean after the facility had been

commissioned?

MR. SANDERSON: Q: Yes. Yes, who will this Commission

look to to ensure that the public service needs of the

province are being met?

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: BCTC and the system operator for the

province.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: And that's true not just of the

manner in which it's operated, but also the physical

adequacy of the facilities on an ongoing basis.

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: I would say that's true even before

Sea Breeze have made the -- have withdrawn the

proposal to finance the project, would have been the

same case.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: Oh, you've actually answered a

question I would have asked in the --

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: We know each other.


MR. SANDERSON: Q: So there you go. Thank you.

So I've started at the back, which had not


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


been my original intent, and we've deal with the two

rows at the bottom of page four, and I'm hoping, Mr.

Chernack, that maybe you had a chance to be looking

through this while Dr. El-Ramly and I were talking.

And I'm wondering whether there's any other specific

elements of this that we can either exclude Sea Breeze

from, or otherwise allocate to a specific party. The

project management I think you've answered by saying

"It's too soon." Obtaining permits and approvals from

parties other than this Commission, is that an area

that Sea Breeze might be interested in performing a

role?

MR. MANSON: A: I would say that, until a week ago, it

was the intention and hope that Sea Breeze would be

undertaking this project to completion. We certainly

have the competence to execute these activities, and I

would say that we would look forward to that level of

involvement.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: I guess my concern really comes from

this source, Mr. Manson. And that is, as I understood

your announcement last Wednesday, it was to withdraw

because of financial concerns with respect to the

ongoing funding of this, and some of these activities

do require ongoing funding commitments. And at the

moment, as I understand your position, it is that

you're not in a position to say you have the funding


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


to enable you to carry these out. And so what I'm

really trying to understand is, (1), which of these

can you do between now and whenever this Commission

ultimately a decision; (2), which of these can you

foresee getting funding to do, should the decision be

favourable to your proposal.

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: I think you now bring us to exactly

the point, why Sea Breeze is not willing to take the

full risk on the project. But assuming now that B.C.

Hydro or BCTC are the financiers of the project, they

will now -- from now on, take all the risk of going

with the project forward.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: Right. And -- and as the risk-

taker, would you see to them, then, the question of

whether to retain Sea Breeze to carry out any of the

particular functions for them.

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: Oh, absolutely.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: And so if the decision of B.C.

Hydro/BCTC with respect to the boxes, there are --

responsible for -- we're not to retain Sea Breeze, you

wouldn't seek any intervention from this Commission in

that respect.

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: And that's answers the very busy

question of why Sea Breeze was not able to come and

say, "I want to be involved in this and this and this

and this." Because it's not a singular party. It's a


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


party that has to work with another party --

MR. SANDERSON: Q: Right

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: -- and unless the capabilities and

the desire of the other party are defined, that is not

possible.

MR. SANDERSON: Q: I understand. But it's no part of

your revised VIC application or any application,

you're bringing this to Commission to seek

intervention to help Sea Breeze achieve any of those

functions.

MR. CHERNACK: A: No, it is not.

MR. SANDERSON: May I have a moment, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you, gentlemen, thank you, Mr.

Chairman, that was helpful.

MR. FULTON: British Columbia Transmission Corporation is

next, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CARPENTER: Q: Good afternoon, gentlemen. Good

afternoon, Chair, Commissioners. My name is Sandy

Carpenter, I appear for the British Columbia

Transmission Corporation.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CARPENTER:

Q: Gentlemen, I've listened to your answers -- I

guess both your opening comment and your answers to

Mr. Sanderson -- and I guess we're probably not likely

to make much more progress. But I did want to ask, in

terms of entity responsible from your perspective,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


does the -- do the names across the top, with the

exception, I guess, of the "other" category, and maybe

that's what I'm talking about -- do they cover the

field, or should we be identifying other parties that

may well have responsibility for some of these tasks?

MR. CHERNACK: A: Mr. Carpenter, panel, we -- this is

the first time we've seen this, and we were not

responsible for assigning these entities. As a --

formerly as a Sea Breeze application, Sea Breeze would

have been responsible for doing the development of

project financing and turning over the operation at

some point to BCTC.

As far as the rules and responsibilities,

there may be other parties, but at this point I don't

think we're prepared to say who they are because it's

not our project now.


MR. CARPENTER: Q: So I take it from that then, that

certainly there are no parties that sort of spring to

mind that are so fundamental in their role that they

would necessarily fit into one of these spots.

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: Are you speaking of for example

consultant or EIF-like or -- I'm not quite so sure of

the question.

MR. CARPENTER: Q: Well, I guess I was assuming with

respect to the revised proposal that EIF and SocGen


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


were off of the list, but if you're telling me that

maybe they still are there --

MR. MANSON: A: Well, this may speak to the

possibilities of the structure involving a partnership

and the possibility of some participation of private

capital in the overall project. But I think as Mr.

Chernack has made clear, that is not our decision to

be making right now.

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: I think another way of saying it is

that going forward, it's an offer not an obligation.

An obligation is a compensation for what happened and

took place until now, and going forward it is an

option of BCTC and B.C. Hydro. And all what Sea

Breeze is saying is that if you accept the VIC-like

proposal, the proposal that we brought in, and if you

compensated for all the effort and intellectual

capital and whatever we've done so far, we would

endeavour to make ourselves available to the extent

you want us to be available to help you capitalize on

what have taking place up to date. So you're asking a

question that almost you maybe should be asking of

BCTC and B.C. Hydro. What do you want going forward,

help, should the Commission find that the big project

is a bit operated on VITR. Why didn't you conclude

that yourself before? And if that's the conclusion,

what other assistance do you need in order to develop


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


a project that you yourself did not conclude doing

your own work that it was the right project to go

ahead with?

MR. CARPENTER: Q: With all due respect, Dr. El-Ramly,

we went from last Wednesday, Sea Breeze withdrawing

its application for the VIC proposal, to last Friday,

Sea Breeze expressing an interest in continuing on.

We are now a number of days past that, and I am

seeking to clarify what Sea Breeze sees as its ongoing

role here, and what if anything it believes others

which it has engaged in this process it would see as

having a continuing role. And if you don't have a

view on that, that's fine, but that's just the purpose

of what this afternoon's session was about.

MR. CHERNACK: A: With that clarification, Mr.

Carpenter, I would add that there may be a role

legitimately for the private sector involved in

procurement, if BCTC decides to go or is ordered

somehow to proceed with a VIC-like project. Because

of the procurement requirements of the public agency,

it may be advantageous in terms of schedule,

expedition to work with someone other than another

public agency in obtaining the necessary B.C.

contract.

MR. CARPENTER: Q: And when you say "a private party",

I take it you mean Sea Breeze.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


MR. CHERNACK: A: As Mr. Manson has said and testified,

Sea Breeze is making itself available if he is so

desired by the project proponents, whether it be BCTC

or B.C. Hydro. We are not proposing that at this

point.

MR. CARPENTER: Q: I understand. And I guess just then

to perhaps try one more time on the vertical axis of

the document, I mean, I appreciate that this Mr.

Sanderson's document, but these are all tasks which

you gentlemen have been aware need to take place with

respect to the VIC project since at least last

September or so, correct?

MR. MANSON: A: Could you clarify that? Sorry.


MR. CARPENTER: Q: Well, I mean, since Sea Breeze

started putting together its application for this

project, it has known that all of these tasks down the

left-hand side of this document over the four pages

are major steps in this -- in the VIC project that

would have to occur.

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: The major steps not necessarily

complete without a careful review, but they appear to

be reasonable steps.

MR. CARPENTER: Q: Yes. And so, knowing that, and

having had some time to think about what a revised VIC

proposal might look like, are there -- apart from the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


four tasks that have been identified so far, are there

any of the other ones here where you see it clearly

being that there's one party that fits that role, and

that's their responsibility?

MR. CHERNACK: A: Well, Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Chairman and

Panel, the -- obviously B.C. Hydro has a legislative

obligations for First Nation consultation in the

stakeholder process.

MR. CARPENTER: Q: So you would see B.C. Hydro filling

that --

MR. CHERNACK: A: -- project to be -- if it was a

project to be promoted and developed by them. And

going the vertical column again, on page two,

technical studies would be the responsibility of BCTC,

as the interconnected party. We would suggest that

because of the technology that the technology

supplier, if ABB or DC Light, or DC -- there are other

versions, Siemens, whatever, the -- that the supplier

of the technology be involved in those technical

studies as a resource. And getting into

counterparties, major project development, all of page

three would primarily -- if it were a turn-key project

development, would be the responsibility of the turn-

key contractor, primarily. Responsible to the

contracting party.

MR. CARPENTER: Q: And when you say the turn-key party,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


I take it that you mean the -- whether it's ABB or

someone else --

MR. CHERNACK: A: Well, whoever the term "EPC

contractor is" --

MR. CARPENTER: Q: Yes.

MR. CHERNACK: A: -- would be responsible to the

contracting counterparty.

MR. CARPENTER: Q: Yes, and I think that was assumed,

and perhaps assumed too quickly by Mr. Sanderson in

his label there, but in terms of the counterparty to

the EPC contract?

MR. CHERNACK: A: I think the -- logically, the

counterparty would be whoever's paying the EPC

contractor.

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: But then a negotiation could be

assisted -- by, for example, Sea Breeze. They have

experience in doing something like that, they're

actually doing a project right now, and they may have

enough experience to help to negotiate a better

contract with ABB. They have good relation with them,

so that's viably BCTC/Sea Breeze.

MR. CARPENTER: Q: Anything else, gentlemen?

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: If by the Commission you mean the

Commission, the B.C. Utilities Commission, then --

MR. CARPENTER: Q: I think that the Commission gets to

define its own role, so I wouldn't be so presumptuous


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


to ask you what you think that their role should be.

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: No, no, I didn't mean it that way. I

wasn't actually thinking that way at all. I'm saying,

if obtaining the Commission approval is fostering the

CPCN --

MR. CARPENTER: Q: I see.

MR. EL-RAMLY: A: -- then I actually believe that Sea

Breeze could very well help you apply and obtain the

approval of the Commission.

MR. CARPENTER: Q: Yes. And I think I heard that

conversation with Mr. Sanderson, so I was trying to

see whether there was any other boxes we could fill

in.

I assume, since you've got down to what

appears to be the end of the document, Dr. El-Ramly,

this is about as far as we're going to be able to go.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, those are my questions.

MR. FULTON: Mr. Chairman, there are no other questions

from other parties on the issues that are before you

this afternoon, so -- and I have no questions, so it's

over to the Panel.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. And the Panel has no

questions. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Landry?

MR. LANDRY: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of IRs, and

there are a few things that we're working on, and as

the panel has already gone into cross-examination I


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


just want to make it formally in the record, from your

perspective, is it okay that I speak to the panel on

issues that obviously are going to be coming up

tomorrow and over the next couple of days? I leave

that to you. But I need to speak to them about the

IRs, for sure.


THE CHAIRPERSON: Right. And I'm going to answer your

question, but indirectly. There is a letter dated

November the 4th, 2004, in which I spoke to this issue.

And rather than reading it into the record I'll simply

refer you to it. It provides, I think, an adequate

zanswer to your question and we'll allow you to do as

I think you're hoping to be able to do and work with

your panel.

MR. LANDRY: Thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything other than that

before we adjourn?

Good, we're adjourned until tomorrow

morning at 9:00.

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 2:21 P.M.)

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE

Volume 8, Wednesday, February 6, 2006

No Exhibits Marked

Volume 9, FEBRUARY 7, 2006 B1-57 RESERVED ...................................... 1256 B1-57 TRANSCRIPT OF MAY 31, 2005 COMMUNITY INFORMATION SESSION OF MAY 31, 2005 HELD IN TSAWWASSEN ................................. 1330 A2-1 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PUBLIC INQUIRY IN THE MATTER OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY AND ITS PROPOSED 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE FROM DUNSMUIR TO GOLD RIVER, DATED JULY 26, 1989 ... 1358

A2-2 INQUIRY REPORT COMMISSION DECISION AND EXHIBIT A-22 ON THE INQUIRY RELATING TO THE UNDERGROUNDING OF THE OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES ALONG BOUNDARY ROAD IN THE CITY OF VANCOUVER DATED MAY 26, 1995 .................. 1359

A2-3 INQUIRY REPORT IN THE MATTER OF WEST KOOTENAY POWER LIMITED AND THE ROUTING OF LINE NUMBER 49 IN THE VICINITY OF PENTICTON, B.C., DATED JANUARY 14TH, 1998 ............................. 1359

A2-4 COMMISSION DECISION IN THE MATTER OF WEST KOOTENAY POWER LIMITED CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR LINE NUMBER 44, DATED AUGUST THE 5TH, 1998 ..................... 1359

A2-5 THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IN THE MATTER OF WEST KOOTENAY POWER LIMITED, THE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR KOOTENAY 230 KV SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DATED JUNE 5TH, 2000 ....................................... 136

A2-6 COMMISSION LETTER NUMBER L-31-01 WITH ATTACHED REASONS FOR DECISION DATED OCTOBER 25TH, 2001 RELATING TO THE COMPLAINT ON THE ROUTING OF THE 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINES THROUGH THE

OOTSCHENIA AREA ............................... 1360

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE A2-7 COMMISSION LETTER L-34-02 DATED SEPTEMBER 6TH,

2002 IN THE MATTER OF THE AQUILA NETWORKS CANADA BRITISH COLUMBIA LIMITED AND THE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION DECISION AND ORDER NUMBER G-46-02 ................................ 1361

VOLUME 10, FEBRUARY 8, 2006

C51-6 DR. NAM'S MATERIAL DATED FEBRUARY 6, 2006 ..... 1406 C6-11 (LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 7, 2006 FROM B.C. HYDRO

WITH ATTACHED CURRICULUM VITAE OF JAMES EDWARD FRALICK ....................................... 1456

B1-57 BINDER CONTAINING ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS, TEST HOLE DATA AND TRANSCRIPT OF TSAWWASSEN INFO SESSION, DATED 6 FEBRUARY 2006 ................ 1480

C34-16 DOCUMENT HEADED "4.0 REFERENCE: APPLICATION, TAB INTRODUCTION P. 11, CPCN CRITERIA" ........ 1522


C34-17 EXCERPTS FROM BCTC "INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT FOR BASELINE STUDY…APRIL, 2005 .................... 1634

B1-58 DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DON GAMBLE ................. 1658 C34-18 MAP "VANCOUVER ISLAND REGION", IN RELATION TO 25

KV SUPPLY TO GULF ISLANDS ..................... 1987 B1-59 GROUP OF REVISED INFORMATION REQUESTS ......... 1759 C3-37 "VANCOUVER ISLAND TRANSMISSION REINFORCEMENT

(VITR) - TSAWWASSEN ROUTE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION", PREPARED BY BCTC ................. 1761

C3-38 ARTICLE FROM THE VANCOUVER PROVINCE DATED FEBRUARY 7, 2006, ENTITLED "SPARKS LIKELY TO FLY AT POWER-LINE HEARING" ........................ 1764

VOLUME 12, FEBRUARY 10, 2006 B2-52 "EXHIBITS FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF BCTC PANEL 1" ................................. 1837 B1-60 RESPONSE TO UNDERTAKING AT TRANSCRIPT VOLUME 8,

PAGE 1162 LINE 24 TO PAGE 1163 LINE 9 ......... 1906 B2-53 COPY OF DR. RASHWAN'S BUSINESS CARD ........... 1928

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE VOLUME 13, FEBRUARY 13, 2006

B1-61 RESPONSE TO BCUC INFORMATION REQUEST 5.205 ET AL ................................... 2203 A2-8 SPECIAL DIRECTIVES HC-1 AND HC-2 .............. 2226

VOLUME 14, FEBRUARY 14, 2006 B1-62 TRANSCRIPT ERRATA FOR THE COMMUNITY INFORMATION

SESSION ON TUESDAY, MAY 31ST, 2005 ............. 2285 B1-63 "VANCOUVER ISLAND 230 KV TRANSMISSION

REINFORCEMENT PROJECT, HWY #17 TO ENGLISH BLUFF AREA RESTORATION COST ASSESSMENT" ............. 2333


B1-64 DOCUMENT ENTITLED "VITR INCENTIVE/PENALTY MECHANISM" .................................... 2422

B1-65 EENS STUDY, DATED JANUARY 9, 2006 ............. 2422 B1-66 REVISED "NON-NATURAL MARINE HAZARDS

ASSESSMENT…FEBRUARY 14, 2006" ................. 2424 B1-67 ("VANCOUVER ISLAND TRANSMISSION REINFORCEMENT

(VITR) PROJECT, COMPARISON OF SUGGESTED ROUTE ALTERNATIVES AT TSAWWASSEN…REVISED

FEBRUARY 14, 2006" ............................ 2474 B1-68 ("NON-FINANCIAL RANKING OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES - TSAWWASSEN" BCUC INFORMATION

REQUEST 4.204.0, REVISED RESPONSE ISSUED FEBRUARY 15, 2006 ............................. 2475

A2-9 EXCERPT, HEADED "1.4 THE NATURE OF COMMISSION APPROVALS", PAGE 2 ............................ 2552

C4-4 "B.C. HYDRO POWER LIVE EASEMENT SUMMARN, 2 PAGES ......................................... 2604

VOLUME 16, FEBRUARY 16, 2006 C1-33 SPREADSHEET ENTITLED "VANCOUVER ISLAND

TRANSMISSION REINFORCEMENT (VITR) PROJECT - COMPARISON OF SUGGESTED ROUTE ALTERNATIVES AT TSAWWASSEN (IR 4.203.2 JAN 2006)" ............. 2621

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE C1-34 E-MAIL FROM MS. VAL RODDICK, MLA, DATED DECEMBER

5, 2005 ....................................... 2658 B2-54 COPY OF 2-PAGE LETTER FROM MR. MANSON TO MS.

PEVERETT, DATED JANUARY 5, 2006 ............... 2769 B2-55 E-MAIL BETWEEN MS. PEVERETT AND MR. MANSON .... 2770

VOLUME 17, FEBRUARY 17, 2006 B1-69 UNDERTAKING OF MR. BARRETT, BCTC, TO MR.

AUSTIN,IRAHVOL ................................ 2943 BI-70 MEMORANDUM FROM CHRISTOPHER BYSTROM OF FASKEN

MARTINEAU ..................................... 2946 C5-18 WITNESS AID WITH RESPECT TO DESCRIPTION OF B.C.

HYDRO EASEMENTS IN TSAWWASSEN ................. 3022 C5-19 EXTRACTS OF TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATIONS AGREEMENT

IN PRINCPLE ................................... 3023

VOLUME 18, FEBRUARY 20, 2006 B1-71 RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST, VOLUME 17,

PAGES 2895-2896 AND 2898-2899 ................. 3072 B1-72 VI TRANSMISSION REINFORCEMENT PROJECT TEAM

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART .......................... 3174 C3-39 BCTC NEWS RELEASE DATED SEPTEMBER 7TH, 2005 .... 3220 B2-56 EXTRACT FROM BCUC IR 140.1 .................... 3225 B2-57 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, VANCOUVER ISLAND 230

KVAC SUPPLY SUBMARINE CABLE SYSTEM ............ 3234 B2-58 VOLUME 1 OF 3, TENDER DOCUMENT, JANUARY 2006,

CONTRACT NO. 300094 ........................... 3241 B2-59 PAGE 9i FROM PART 9, APPENDIX A ............... 3271

VOLUME 19, FEBRUARY 21, 2006 B1-73 UNDERTAKING OF MR. DUNNE, BCTC TO MR. HOLMSEN . 3278 B1-74 UNDERTAKING OF MR MacPHAIL, BCTC, TO MR.LANDY,

SEABREEZE ..................................... 3278 B1-75 DRAFT REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL STABILITY

ASSESSMENT ................................... 3278 B2-60 DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM MR. LANDRY ............ 3289 B1-76 DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM MR. CARPENTER ......... 3289

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE B2-61 MAP RELATING TO LOWER MAINLAND AND SEISMIC

SENSITIVITY ................................... 3316 B1-77 GRAPH, EMF LEVELS MEASURED AT GROUND LEVEL .... 3338 B2-62 SEA BREEZE REBUTTAL EVIDENCE .................. 3339 B1-78 NERC STANDARD ................................. 3496 B2-58A EXHIBIT B2-58 REMARKED AS EXHIBIT B2-58A ...... 3497 B2-58B VOLUME 2 OF TENDER DOCUMENTS .................. 3497 B2-58C VOLUME 3 OF TENDER DOCUMENTS .................. 3498

VOLUME 20, FEBRUARY 22, 2006 C34-19 WEB PAGES FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

AND OCEANS .................................... 3508 C34-20 ARCHIVAL MATERIALS FROM DELTA MUSEUM ARCHIVES . 3517 C41-5 EQUAKEALERT DOCUMENT .......................... 3569 C41-6 SCHOOL EMERGENCY EXIT PLAN .................... 3577 C41-7 DOCUMENT "SEVEN STEPS TO ELECTRICAL SAFETY" ... 3580 B1-79 REVISED MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE .... 3613 B1-80 SEISMIC REVIEW OF GALIANO ISLAND, PARKER ISLAND

AND SALT SPRING ISLAND CABLE TERMINAL SITES ... 3666 B2-63 EVIDENCE "REASONS WHY SEA BREEZE BELIEVES BIDS

UNDER…" ....................................... 3733 B2-64 SEA BREEZE OMNIBUS DOCUMENT ................... 3734

VOLUME 21, FEBRUARY 23, 2006 B2-65 EXCERPT FROM AN ARTICLE RE CONE PENETRATION IN

GEOTECHNICAL PRACTICE ......................... 3741 B2-66 ARTICLE BY ROBERTSON AND WRITE ON EVALUATING

CYCLIC LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL USING THE CONE PENETRATION TEST .............................. 3749

C6-12 LETTER FROM MR. SANDERSON TO MR. LANDRY ....... 3858 B1-81 OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN OF SALT SPRING ISLAND . 3879 B1-82 GROUP OF DOCUMENTS FROM THE CORPORATION OF

DELTA, ........................................ 3937 C34-21 IRAHVOL's POLICY PANEL OPENING STATEMENT ...... 3968 C6-13 TWO-PAGE COVER LETTER ......................... 3969

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE VOLUME 22, FEBRUARY 24, 2006

B1-83 UNDERTAKING OF BCTC TO MS.KUDZIN .............. 3970 B1-84 UNDERTAKING OF MR. BARRETT TO MR. ARVAY ....... 3971 C26-9 SALT SPRING IRAHVOL PETITION .................. 4000 B1-85 PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION IN FIGURE-RELATED

CONCEPTUAL FORM ............................... 4128 B1-86 1958 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF DELTA ............... 4170 B1-87 2005 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ........................ 4171 B1-88 MAP OF THE B.C. TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ........... 4183 C3-40 AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL ATCHISON .................... 4185 C3-41 AFFIDAVIT OF MARCIA NEWMAN .................... 4185 C3-42A NEIL ATCHISON'S WORKING NOTES PAGES 1-15 ...... 4186 C3-42B NEIL ATCHISON'S WORKING NOTES PAGES 1-9 ....... 4186 C3-42C NEIL ATCHISON'S WORKING NOTES, E-MAIL DATED

FEBRUARY 1, 2006 .............................. 4186 C3-43 E-MAIL FROM NEIL ATCHISON TO MARCIA NEWMAN DATED

FEBRUARY 1, 2006 .............................. 4187

VOLUME 23, FEBRUARY 27, 2006 B51-7 SERIES OF E-MAILS TO AND FROM DR. NAM ......... 4188 B1-89 TSAWWASEN FIRST NATION AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE . 4192 B1-90 CORPORATION OF DELTA, MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

OF JULY 10, 2001 .............................. 4206 B1-91 DOCUMENT HEADED "MAY 16, 2001 - RISK OF UNDERSEA

SLIDES THREATEN DELTA'S FORESHORE", TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ..................................... 4208

B1-92 "VOLUME 15, NO. 2, 2004, DOCUMENTS OF THE NRPB, ADVICE ON LIMITING EXPOSURE TO ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (0-300 GHZ)" ........................... 4258

B1-93 PRINTOUT FROM WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION WEBSITE, "ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (EMF)" ................ 4260

C3-44 "TSAWWASSEN'S ENDANGERED SPACES 2006 CALENDEAR" 4302 C-45 "OPENING STATEMENT - TRAHVOL, BCUC VITR/VIC

HEARING, FEBRUARY 27, 2006" ................... 4319 C3-46 EDITORIAL FROM THE DELTA OPTIMIST DATED FEBRUARY

22, 2006 ...................................... 4319

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE C36-4 RESPONSES OF MS. SUTHERLAND ................... 4362 B1-94 RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST AT VOLUME 20,

PAGE 3849 ..................................... 4363 B1-95 RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST AT VOLUME 20,

PAGE 3634 ..................................... 4364

VOLUME 24, FEBRUARY 28, 2006 C3-47 TRAHVOL POWERPOINT PRESENTATION ............... 4434 C3-48 LIST OF TRAHVOL MEETING DATES ................. 4434 B2-67 RESPONSES TO INFORMATION REQUESTS FROM B.C.

HYDRO ......................................... 4435 B2-68 DIRECT EVIDENCE OF SEA BREEZE PANEL 1 ......... 4480 C1-35 OPENING STATEMENT OF KARSTEN HOLMSEN .......... 4484 B1-96 MATERIAL FROM TRAHVOL's WEBSITE ............... 4524 B1-97 UNDERTAKING OF BCTC TO MR. HERBERT, SEA BREEZE 4537 B2-69 OPENING STATEMENT OF SEA BREEZE CORPORATE

POLICY/MANAGEMENT PANEL ....................... 4539

VOLUME 25, MARCH 1, 2006 B1-98 UNDERTAKING OF BCTC TO COMMISSIONER HOBBS ..... 4679 B1-99 UNDERTAKING OF MR. BARRETT, BCTC TO COMMISSIONER NICHOLLS ......................... 4679 B1-100 UNDERTAKING OF MR. BARRETT, BCTC, TO MR. FULTON, BCUC .............................. 4680

VOLUME 26, MARCH 3, 2006 C6-14 DIRECT TESTIMONY AND CV OF TONY MORRIS ........ 4817 C31-11 LETTER FROM J.P. LANDRY, DAVIS & COMPANY, DATED

MARCH 2, 2006, WITH ATTACHED REVISED WITNESS PANEL LIST .................................... 4818

INDEX OF EXHIBITS


VOLUME 27, MARCH 6, 2006 B1-101 UNDERTAKING OF BCTC TO COMMISSIONER O’HARA .... 4956 B1-102 LETTER FROM CHAIR OF MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT

COMMISSION DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 2001 ........... 4988 B1-103 NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD'S ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING

REPORT ON THE SUMAS 2 HEARING, WITH THE BOARD'S COMMENTS ON THE EMF ISSUE ..................... 4990

B1-104 LETTER FROM UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DATED JANUARY 29TH, 1992 WITH RESPECT TO POTENTIAL CARCINOGENICITY OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS ........................ 4996

B1-105 ARTICLE ENTITLED "ELECTROMAGNETIC HYPERSENSITIVITY, A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF PROVOCATION STUDIES" BY DR. JAMES RUBIN AND TWO CO-AUTHORS .................................... 5003

B1-106 WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION FACT SHEET DATED DECEMBER 2005, HEADED "ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH, ELECTROMAGNETIC HYPERSENSITIVITY .............................. 5010

B1-107 STUDY FROM U.K. HEALTH PROTECTION AGENCY ENTITLED "POWER FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS, MELATONIN AND THE RISK OF BREAST CANCER, REPORT OF AN INDEPENDENT ADVISORY GROUP ON NON-IONIZING RADIATION” ........................... 5060

B1-108 PAPER ENTITLED "CHILDHOOD CANCER IN RELATION TO DISTANCE FORM HIGH VOLTAGE POWER LINES IN ENGLAND AND WALES: A CASE-CONTROLLED STUDY" by DRAPER ET A. .................................. 5074

B1-109 DOCUMENT ENTITLED "FRAMEWORK GUIDING PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY, OPTIONS AND AREAS OF SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTY DEALING WITH EMF, DATED JUNE 2005 . 5110

C3-49 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REPORT BY DELPIZZO, NEUTRA AND LEE ....................................... 5142

INDEX OF EXHIBITS


VOLUME 28, MARCH 7, 2006 B1-110 UNDERTAKING OF MR. GABEL, BCTC, TO COMMISSIONER

HOBBS ......................................... 5176 B1-111 UNDERTAKING OF MR. BARRETT, BCTC TO COMMISSIONER

O’HARA ........................................ 5177 C-31-12 REVISED VERSION OF EXHIBIT C31-11 ............. 5177 C3-50 DECISION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY ..................................... 5220

C3-51 DECISION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, JANUARY 26, 2006 ..... 5232

C3-52 HEALTH EFFECTS ABD EXPOSURE GUIDELINES RELATED TO EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS, AN OVERVIEW .......................... 5243

C3-53 OVERALL EVALUATIONS OF CARCINOGENICITY TO HUMANS GROUP 2B: POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS ..... 5248 C3-54 TRANSCRIPT FROM LARRY KING LIVE SHOW ......... 5260 C3-55 EXCERPT FROM "EMF WRAPPAGE" BOOKLET FROM NIEHS 5265 C3-56 DOCUMENT SHOWING DIFFERENT POSSIBLE SCENARIOS OF

EMF ........................................... 5275 A-71 REVISED HEARING ISSUES LIST ................... 5286 C3-57 DRAFT REPORT ON RELATION BETWEEN POWER FREQUENCY

ELECTRIC ANDMAGNETIC FIELD EXPOSURE AND HUMAN CANCER ........................................ 5328

C3-58 POPULATION-BASED CASE-CONTROL STUDY OF OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND BREAST CANCER ............................. 5333

C3-59 POLLAN REPORT ................................. 5333 C3-60 KLIUKIENE STUDY ............................... 5339 C3-61 VILLENEUVE STUDY .............................. 5342 C1-36 RÉSUMÉ OF MR. GALLAGHER FROM B.C. CANCER

RESEARCH CENTRE WEBSITE ....................... 5376 C1-37 EXCERPT FROM 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF NATIONAL ENERGY

BOARD HEARINGS WITH MR. GALLAGHER'S RESPONSES TO CROSS-EXAMINATION ............................. 5379

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE C41-8 QUESTION OF MR. KAROW TO DR. AHLBOM FROM BCUC

WEBSITE ....................................... 5415 C31-13 LETTER FROM SEA BREEZE VICTORIA CONVERTER

CORPORATION TO MR. DAVID POLLACK, CITY OF WHITE ROCK, WITH ATTACHMENT ......................... 5442

VOLUME 29, MARCH 8, 2006

C31-14 REVISED OPENING STATEMENT OF SEA BREEZE CORPORATE POLICY/MANAGEMENT PANEL ............. 5449

C6-15 WITNESS AID: REVISED PROPOSAL: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .............................. 5466

Documents

BRITISH COLUMBIA UTILITIES COMMISSION€¦ · Allwest Reporting Ltd. 2nd Floor-855 Homer Street Vancouver, B.C BRITISH COLUMBIA UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE UTILITIES